Notice of Intent; Environmental Impact Statement for the Crane and Rowan Mountain Timber Sales, Tongass National Forest, Stikine Area, Petersburg, AK

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Notice of Intent; Environmental Impact Statement for the Crane

and Rowan Mountain Timber Sales, Tongass National Forest, Stikine Area,

Petersburg, AK

agency: Forest Service, USDA.

action: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

summary: This proposed action was announced on April 1, 1997 as two

separate Environmental Assessments (EA), one each for the Crane and

Rowan Mountain Timber Sales. The decision to prepare EAs for these

projects was based upon, among other things, several prior extensive

environmental analyses that have been conducted for similar projects.

Individually they did not indicate a significant effect to the human

environment. After considering the public input, we have decided to

document the analysis of these two proposed timber sales in an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

1. Purpose and scope of the decision. The purpose of the projects

is to make available for harvest approximately 10-15 million board feet

(MMBF) of timber from the Crane Timber Sale and approximately 9-12 MMBF

from the Rowan Mountain Timber Sale. These projects will contribute

sawlog and utility timber volume and related employment and income

opportunities to the timber industry in Southeast Alaska and will help

meet the goals and objectives of the Revised Tongass Land Management

Plan.

The geographic location of this proposed project is the north

portion of Kuiu Island and includes value comparison units (VCU) 399,

400, 402, and 421. The western portion of VCU 420 (west side of Port

Camden) is also included. Timber harvesting and roading has occurred in

all of the VCU's.

The decision to be made is:

(1) Whether or not timber harvest will occur in the Crane and Rowan

Mountain project area;

(2) How much timber will be harvested;

(3) Location and design of harvest units;

(4) Location and design of road construction and potential

reconstruction; and

(5) What mitigation measures and monitoring will be implemented.

A reasonable range of alternatives will be developed, including a

No Action alternative. No additional road building or timber harvest

would occur under the No Action alternative.

2. Scoping and public participation. Public scoping for these

projects began on April 1, 1997. We mailed a scoping letter to

interested groups, organizations, and members of the public who

indicated an interest in the project by responding to the Stikine Area

Project Schedule, or who otherwise notified the Stikine Area that they

were interested in the Crane and Rowan Mountain Timber Harvest

Projects. This Notice of Intent constitutes an extension of this

scoping process, which will end September 19th, 1997. At the time of

this notice, a scoping letter is being mailed to interested groups,

organizations, and members of the public explaining the transition from

an Environmental Analysis to an Environmental Impact Statement Process.

Scoping results from the April 1, 1997 mailing have reinforced the

preliminary issues identified and did not suggest additional issues.

The issues as noted in the April 1 mailing are listed below:

1. Cultural Resources--How should timber management activities be

designed to protect cultural resources?

2. Economics--How should the project be designed to contribute to

the economic health of Southeast Alaska?

3. Fish--How should fish habitat be managed and what effect would

timber harvest and related activities have on fish habitat?

4. Recreation--How should recreation opportunities be protected or

enhanced in the design of timber management activities?

5. Soil--How should timber management activities be designed to

protect the soil resource? What effects would activities have on soil

productivity?

6. Subsistence--How should timber management activities be designed

to protect traditional subsistence uses? What effect would activities

have on subsistence uses and users?

7. Timber Management--How should the project be designed to provide

for efficient and long-term timber management?

8. Scenery--How should timber management activities be designed to

protect areas of high scenic quality and what effect would activities

have on the landscapes of Kuiu Island?

9. Water Quality--How should timber management activities be

designed to protect water quality? What effects would activities have

on water quality?

10. Wildlife Habitat--What effects would timber harvest and related

activities have on wildlife habitat?

Dates: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received

in writing by September 19, 1997.

For Further Information Contact: Information relating to the supplement

may be obtained by contacting Bob Gerdes, Interdisciplinary Team

Leader, USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 309, Petersburg, AK 99833.

Expected Time for Completion: A draft EIS is projected for issuance

approximately 2 months from the date of the Notice of Intent, or

October 17, 1997.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision is

expected to be released by March 30, 1998. The Responsible Official

will make a decision regarding this proposal after considering public

comments, and the environmental consequences displayed in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement, and applicable laws, regulations, and

policies. The decision and supporting reason will be documented in the

Record of Decision.

Public Comment: Interested parties are invited to comment. The comment

period on the Draft EIS will be 45 days from the first day after

publication of notice of availability in the Federal Register by the

Environmental Protection Agency. To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as

specific as possible. It is helpful for comments to refer to specific

pages or chapters of the draft environmental impact statement or the

merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement.

Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality

regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 while addressing these

points.

In addition, Federal court decisions have established that

reviewer's of Draft EISs must structure their participation in the

environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and

alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont

Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. versus NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978).

Environmental objections that could

[[Page 45791]]

have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until

after completion of the Final EIS. City of Angonn versus Hodel, (9th

Circuit, 1986) and Wisconsin Hertage's, Inc. versus Harris, 490 F.

Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The reason for this is to ensure

that substantive comments and objections are made available to the

Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and

respond to them in the Final EIS.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names

and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the

public record on this proposed action and will be available for public

inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and

considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have

standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR Parts 215 and

217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request

the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing

how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality.

Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under

FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited

circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service

will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the

request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the

agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the

comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address.

The responsible official for the decision in Patricia A. Grantham,

Acting Forest Supervisor, Stikine Area, Tongass National Forest, Alaska

Region, Petersburg, Alaska.

Dated: August 15, 1997.

Patricia A. Grantham,

Acting Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 97-23000 Filed 8-28-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M